If a human can choose how to interpret holy text however they want and there isn't an immediate response from a diety for interpreting them wrong, the texts must not really matter.
If only certain things matter, then nothing matters. I prefer a God who lets us be free.
maybe there is no “wrong” way to interpret the text
If the intended interpretation of a text is "respect women" and you instead interpret the text as "you can own women", then you have interpreted the text incorrectly.
This man deserves every ounce of respect that he gets, all of it earned.
That's just all religions thought. They all are abusive and manipulative.
Some might have a different stance on women but none are worthy of existence.
how is judaism abusive and manipulative? attending regular services brings me a sense of inner peace, aligns my actions with my beliefs, and connects me with my community
All religions, no exceptions. To kick things off with the lowest of low hanging fruit: your religion practices male genital mutilation.
But the abuse, manipulations and control go all the way through from patriarchal hierarchies to an "exacting regimen requiring absolute obedience and humility; strong social pressures and rewards for cooperation;"
Which is to say cult brainwashing techniques used by any religion from Judaism to Mormonism to Hinduism. From the Branch Davidians to the Sumerian high priesthood: humans have never ceased using the 0-days of the human mind to exploit and manipulate their fellow man.
Does that mean religions can only do evil? Of course not. I'm glad you get a sense of connection and peace from it.
But that connection and peace serves to perpetuate the primeval toxic hierarchy. You'll raise your kids on it. Make sure they believe it from a young age. After all - "Train a child according to his way; even when he grows old, he will not turn away from it." (Proverbs 22:6) You gotta get em young or they'll never believe when they're old.
Just dropping in to note that I have read about some really cool feminist and women centered interpretations of many major religions over the years. Women are actively combating this sort of thing from within every religious community and there's a long, uplifting history of it going back to the beginning. Gives me happy feelings to know.
In apocryphal gospels, Mary Magdalene was an apostle, and one of the most important ones. In order to believe that the gospels which were compiled to become the bible were "divinely inspired" and not selected (and edited) by the fucking Romans for political reasons, you have to be either dangerously naive or have an agenda.
Yeah but if you're already at that point, chances are you're just going to go a step further and not care about what books were included or not because it's all bullshit.
Religious people, and women in particular, seem to really love participating in their own oppression. Hell, look at the amount of shit Catholics have to ignore in order to keep attending services and paying money to those bastards every Sunday in good conscience.
Yes, that's what happens when you're indoctrinated from birth.
Can confirm.
this isn't limited to religious people
I have a Tshirt that says *"Religion - weirdos in robes making shit up" and it has 5 men dressed in the robes of the major religions.
Christians twice?
Maybe one is supposed to be protestant/church of England? Definitely not a different religion though
Maybe one is Catholic?
While Jesus himself is overwhelmingly sympathetic to women, the bible's later chapters (specifically those written by Paul) are pretty clear on how women ought to be treated. So while you could technically interpret it as exalting women, any religious leader turning to the bible with a specific question of how to behave will be more likely to find those later chapters with direct answers more appealing.
I love JC, but words mean definitive things
I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent
There are no alternative interpretations, only self delusions to protect yourself from bigger questions
There are in fact at least two alternative explanations on this: (1) Paul is issuing a general decree that in absolute terms means women must never have authority in any situation ever at any time; (2) this is a local issue specific to Israel at the time because Jews believed women shouldn't have authority, and the Church allowing them to would bring it into disrepute, so this was fitting in with the local society. The second interpretation also ties in with Paul's "all things to all people" teaching. Also Paul in other places specifically notes the difference between "I, not the Lord...", and "The Lord, not I...", and this line states "--I-- do not permit...", suggesting this is from Paul rather than an ultimate directive from above.
Religious texts are a choose your own adventure book, even for the fundamentalists that endorse the parts like that. All believers intentionally leave room for whatever they like.
I have a lot of respect for Jimmy Carter, but I just can't agree here. There is no way to read the Bible and not see the out-and-out misogyny in both testaments.
Women are clearly considered property. Paul says he does not permit women to speak in church.
Hello, I am researching American crimes against humanity. . This space so far has been most strongly for memes, and that's fine.
There's other groups and you are welcome to add to them. USAuthoritarianism Linktree
See Also, my website. USAuthoritarianism.com be advised at time of writing it is basically just a donate link
Cool People: !thepoliceproblem@lemmy.world
